P.D. Rajan, J.

1. Revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for different periods and also directed to pay fine under the aforesaid sections. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. An appeal filed was partly allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manjeri, confirming the conviction passed by the trial court but, modified the sentence of rigorous imprisonment into simple imprisonment. Challenging the said judgments this criminal revision petition has been preferred. The prosecution case is that on 05.08.1994, at about 1 a.m., the revision petitioner was driving a jeep, KEV. 6050, in rash and negligent manner along the Kuttippuram-Valanchery public road. When the vehicle reached at Karinkapara, it collided against an auto-rickshaw No. KL-10A-6681, as a result, the passengers of the auto-rickshaw sustained serious injuries and one Suresh Babu, who was travelling in the auto-rickshaw succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the information A.S.I. of police, Kuttippuram, registered a Crime No. 75/94 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. After completing investigation, Circle Inspector of Police, Changaramkulam filed charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur.

2. When accused appeared in the trial court, particulars of the offence read over to him to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and admitted Exts. P1 to P11 in evidence. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and he did not adduce any defence evidence. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. Against that order, he preferred an appeal in the first appellate court where the findings of the trial court, was confirmed.

3. Heard both sides. The learned counsel Adv. Sri. Sivadas, appearing for the appellant contended that P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the occurrence witnesses. Their evidence is inconsistent with regard to the occurrence. The rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner was not deposed in the oral testimony of P.Ws. 2 and 3. PW 1 was travelling in the auto-rickshaw at the time of accident and he saw the accident in the light of a lorry, which was not disclosed to the police when he was questioned. The place of occurrence was neither identified in the scene plan nor in the mahazar. When rash and negligent driving was not proved by the prosecution with reliable evidence, the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. [He relied on a decision reported in Munib Sao Vs. The State of Bihar,

4. The learned Public Prosecutor Smt. M. Madhuben, strongly resisted the above contention and contended that P.Ws. 1 to 3 saw the accident and no reason to disbelieve their oral testimony. The rash and negligent driving of the jeep was proved through the direct oral testimony of PW 1 and no reasons are highlighted by the defence counsel to discredit the evidence of the occurrence witnesses. In the mahazar, place of occurrence is properly identified. There was sufficient light at the time of accident to identify the driver of the jeep. They saw the driver in the light of a lorry. Moreover, the revision petitioner approached P.Ws. 1 and 2 for a settlement. That identity itself is sufficient to prove that the revision petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. In the light of the above argument, the only question that arises for consideration is whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the finding of the court below? If so, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is sustainable in law?. In order to attract rash and negligent driving, prosecution has to prove that the revision petitioner had driven a vehicle on a public way in a manner so rashly or negligently, so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt to any person